[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe that is true because blind people can see patterns from impulses being relayed by the optic nerve, but this doesn't mean we're dealing with true vision; the kind of vision that allows us to actually see normally.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're missing the point. Lessans' bizzare strawman of what he wrongly thought afferent vision requires never happens. What afferent vision does require actually does happen, as you just agreed. So Lessans' passage you quoted is incorrect. He did not describe a requirement of afferent vision which doesn't actually occur.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All the information is there at the eye, that is true, but the eye can't see itself. It must use the light's wavelengths by means of the cones and rods to see the real world --- that's out there --- not in the brain.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is nothing efferent in this at all. What you describe is simply the brain interpreting afferently recieved (and allegedly real-time) information from the light which has arrived at the eyes. What you are describing is how people 'look out'. You are no longer describing how all this happens and then the brain looks out as some further additional act. This is no longer efferent. It is just (allegedly) real-time afferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At one time light had to travel to the object, but once the light is here, it's always here. I'll say this again: If you can see an object through a lens, the light is already present so when you take a photograph it's a photograph in real time, not delayed time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one is denying that the light is always there once it is there. That is a tautology and does not in any way establish that the photograph will be real-time rather than delayed.

Your logic is way off. What you just posted that makes no sense to me, yet you think you have figured it all out. If you believe the eyes are afferent, the more power to you, but I will stick with my belief that it's not. Let's agree to disagree, okay?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. This thread was intended for his first discovery until it got hijacked again. I also said more empirical studies will determine, once and for all, who is right, but the testing has to be reliable and replicable.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are still refusing to discuss his first non-discovery with me. And no further testing is necessary. All you have to do is follow through the implications of your own position for yourself by answering my questions. Do you have the courage to do that?

This has nothing to do with courage. And please don't patronize me. I have followed through with the implications, and I believe he was right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So the next question is this: If the object changes color after the light in question leaves its surface, but before that light reaches the camera (i.e. before the photograph is taken), can the frequency of that travelling light change while it is in transit (between the object and the camera) so that it continues to match the real-time color of the object?

The light is not in transit Spacemonkey when it comes to objects that are resolved by our retina, or by the film in a camera. You are the confused one, sorry.